Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!

Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!

For me I would then have 14-200 2.8, which is a pretty good range not to mention the 'holy trinity'.

It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it

Just start saving up. I sold my Mark I on Craig's List for 1200 so the Mark II only ended up costing me 1k.

Yeah, only have no mk1 to sell. I was going to sacrfice my 24 f1.4 for it, but I just can't sell that hunk of glass, it's just too awesome iin a way the 24-70 couldn't be. So I'm starting from scratch

I see from your signature you have very nice lenses that cover the 24-70 range more or less. Are you sure you need it and that you will not feel strange/bad/guilty (whatever) if you do not use your prime lenses ?

Unless you need it for landscapes and do not want to change lenses in the cold

Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!

well 14mm is a LOT wider than 24mm and T&S can be useful so I could certainly understand someone having a 14mm, a T&S and a 24-70.

It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it

Just start saving up. I sold my Mark I on Craig's List for 1200 so the Mark II only ended up costing me 1k.

Yeah, only have no mk1 to sell. I was going to sacrfice my 24 f1.4 for it, but I just can't sell that hunk of glass, it's just too awesome iin a way the 24-70 couldn't be. So I'm starting from scratch

I see from your signature you have very nice lenses that cover the 24-70 range more or less. Are you sure you need it and that you will not feel strange/bad/guilty (whatever) if you do not use your prime lenses ?

Unless you need it for landscapes and do not want to change lenses in the cold

I use the Elinchrom Quadra light a lot outside, and with kids you don't get two chances for shots, so be able to shoot a fun and dramatic shot at 24 and pop it to 70mm for a nice portrait in a split second can be essential. And for those shots, even with the ND8 on, I usually have to stop down to 2.8 anyway. So for me they have very different uses. So I think I would use them equally much. PLUS another BIG advantage for the 24-70 is the AF-speed when tracking. Shot the 24-70 at 2.8 with that AF would give me 100/100 images sharp whilst the 50 L would give me shiftet focus at 2.8 and maybe 30-40/100 sharpish.

Canon MK II is a champ at f/2.8 resolution, look at that center frame f/2.8 performance on an optical bench! Even for MTF80 it is still near 0.8 while Nikon is down to under 0.65 and Tamron 0.55. The Mk II is capable of really driving high-density sensors super well wide open.

Of course it also shows, that as people say, a body with more MP + a lesser lens always outdoes a body with less MP but the most amazing lens when it comes to total detail. So D800 + either option captures more detail than 5D3+MkII (as expected). The D800 could use an even cheaper lens and still deliver the same total detail. Which again goes to show all the talk about high MP needing the best lenses to work well compared to lower MP sensors doesn't (and has never begun to) make sense (although it does make sense if the goal is to get every last bit of performance out of them, which a MkII seems it could do better than the other options).

But the MkII should still rock really nice micro-contrast center frame on a 7D at f/2.8 while the Tamron probably won't resolve the tiniest finest details quite as well.

I am purchasing the 24-70 II in about 2 weeks and will be taking it on a 1-week hike in mountains where it will be my only lens. I'll know it intimately by the end of that. I'll pano with Really Right Stuff on a lightweight tripod and ballhead to get more width than 24mm, when the need arises. Really looking forward to it.

It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it

Just start saving up. I sold my Mark I on Craig's List for 1200 so the Mark II only ended up costing me 1k.

Yeah, only have no mk1 to sell. I was going to sacrfice my 24 f1.4 for it, but I just can't sell that hunk of glass, it's just too awesome iin a way the 24-70 couldn't be. So I'm starting from scratch

I see from your signature you have very nice lenses that cover the 24-70 range more or less. Are you sure you need it and that you will not feel strange/bad/guilty (whatever) if you do not use your prime lenses ?

Unless you need it for landscapes and do not want to change lenses in the cold

I use the Elinchrom Quadra light a lot outside, and with kids you don't get two chances for shots, so be able to shoot a fun and dramatic shot at 24 and pop it to 70mm for a nice portrait in a split second can be essential. And for those shots, even with the ND8 on, I usually have to stop down to 2.8 anyway. So for me they have very different uses. So I think I would use them equally much. PLUS another BIG advantage for the 24-70 is the AF-speed when tracking. Shot the 24-70 at 2.8 with that AF would give me 100/100 images sharp whilst the 50 L would give me shiftet focus at 2.8 and maybe 30-40/100 sharpish.

Pretty good arguments. I have the TS 24 II L , the 35mm 1.4L 50mm 1.8 (version 1) 85mm 1.8 and 24-105/4L among others (talking about the 24-70 range more or less) so I myself feel hesitant for 24-70 2.8 II (although in addition to sharpness and versatility there is a sentimental reason to get it: my original 24-70 2.8 had been stolen 3.5 years ago )

Whilst the IQ is a treat, the thing I find most noticeably pleasing is the handling/weight. The old one was heavy and felt not as 'balanced'.

+1 and the old one with the narrow zoomring that, on both my copies, was seriously uneven in how much resistance the zoom ring had across the range. First time I picked up up a mk2 and stuffed it infront of my 5d2 it just felt soo much nicer.